Reading the comments im finding that apparently 3 kids beat and tortured an autistic boy for 3 days or something and got off relatively scot free. This guy does some nasty trolling and gets 4.5 months in jail._________________

Hey cuntrag, when I ask for THOUGHTS, rather than stating an opinion or commenting on how fucked up it is its because im asking for more information from people in the country who would have had more exposure to that news.

So thought number 1 for me.
I hope you die of syphillis._________________

Jesus, Monkey, calm the fuck down. Guy sounds like he has more issues than trolling, note 'imaginary acts of paedophillia'._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

Jesus, Monkey, calm the fuck down. Guy sounds like he has more issues than trolling, note 'imaginary acts of paedophillia'.

Which is pretty much what i was thinking, that said I was unaware that the UK had a law against offensive speech. Here in the U.S. people just have to deal with or ignore it, and I had assumed there was a similar standard over there.

I still hope smartass mcgee up there dies of syphillis though._________________

dude, you use info from internet commenters on news articles at your peril._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

Now, Monkey could be being clever and he could be 'trolling' in honour of the man that was jailed for it.

Or he could just be an incredible waste of space. <= it's this one._________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Hey cuntrag, when I ask for THOUGHTS, rather than stating an opinion or commenting on how fucked up it is its because im asking for more information from people in the country who would have had more exposure to that news.

So thought number 1 for me.
I hope you die of syphillis.

First off, take some deep breaths, I wouldn't want you to die of a heart-attack just because people on the internet disagree with you.

You ask for thoughst on the article, my thoughts are that I think such laws shouldn't exist. If you wanted more information instead of people's opinion, you should have asked "can anyone give me more information" instead of simply "thoughts ?"

Then you post a comment about another case, which is quite unrelated to the trolling case and all the information you have about it is a comment on a news site. Are you really surprised people have an issue with posting something that is 1. irrelevant, 2. is based on nothing but hearsay ?

Here in the U.S. people just have to deal with or ignore it, and I had assumed there was a similar standard over there.

The U.S. is more protective of offensive speech than pretty much any other country in the world.

Doesn't this stem from the fact that in the US the burden of proof lies with the offended proving that the offender meant the speech to be slanderous whereas in Great Britain the offender has to prove that they were not intending the speech to be offensive, even if it's true (i.e. you can say something truthful about a person and still be held accountable for being slanderous)?_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

No, it has more to do with different ideas about what should and shouldn't be protected speech. The US has historically erred on the side of protecting all speech, most of the rest of the world hasn't. This might be due to the fact that the freedom of speech is explicitly written into the Bill of Rights, the first amendments to pass and considered totally fundamental. These protections were there at the beginning, in other words. Many other countries weren't starting from a clean slate.

This might be due to the fact that the freedom of speech is explicitly written into the Bill of Rights, the first amendments to pass and considered totally fundamental. These protections were there at the beginning, in other words. Many other countries weren't starting from a clean slate.

Most modern constitutions include the freedom of speech, no? I think the American obsession with freedom of speech comes from the years of propaganda during the cold war in the same way that Americans love to talk about "freedom" and "liberty".

And Monkey: that still doesn't have anything to do with this whole thing. The only link is some douche in a comments section._________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Most modern constitutions include the freedom of speech, no? I think the American obsession with freedom of speech comes from the years of propaganda during the cold war in the same way that Americans love to talk about "freedom" and "liberty".

Yeah, they include such clauses, but Kilgore is spot-on in that the US is the most aggressive in defending it. Our libel laws make it virtually impossible for a media outlet to lose a case and we don't pass absurd bans on minarets and headscarves.

Say what you will about the hubbub in New York City and Park51, the impediments have all been public relations issues, not legal._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca